Mathematics, common sense and the origin of man.

Morphological changes are evidence for evolution whether you want to acknowledge it or not (technically, morphological differences do add to the
definition of new species and is the prime indicator differentiating extinct species). Predictions can be made by studying fossils between different
eras as well as living species, and determining changes that would be expected to be seen in fossils that would be an intermediary between the two. We
can examine what changes are found. Its not a hard concept.

I agree, right up to the limits of my understanding (so maybe i should say believe..., maybe trust ?...)

Anyway, i can see leostokes point, a dogs a dog, a cats a cat and you do want to be able to see the missing link between the two (if indeed there is a
link, have they evolved seperately rather than being closely related ? Eyes have evolved distinctly more than once)

Are the missing links extinct ?

should we look for 'crossovers' between species or is that misunderstanding how evolution works ? A Cheetah is a bit like a dog, but it's still a
cat.

I guess we need to say what defines a new species and at what point evolution changes one into another.

Morphological changes are evidence for evolution whether you want to acknowledge it or not (technically, morphological differences do add to the
definition of new species and is the prime indicator differentiating extinct species). Predictions can be made by studying fossils between different
eras as well as living species, and determining changes that would be expected to be seen in fossils that would be an intermediary between the two. We
can examine what changes are found. Its not a hard concept.

I agree, right up to the limits of my understanding (so maybe i should say believe..., maybe trust ?...)

Anyway, i can see leostokes point, a dogs a dog, a cats a cat and you do want to be able to see the missing link between the two (if indeed there is a
link, have they evolved seperately rather than being closely related ? Eyes have evolved distinctly more than once)

Are the missing links extinct ?

should we look for 'crossovers' between species or is that misunderstanding how evolution works ? A Cheetah is a bit like a dog, but it's still a
cat.

I guess we need to say what defines a new species and at what point evolution changes one into another.

Single cells have a lot to answer for !

The evolutionists exaggerate. They have never presented an example of a species that fits between two other species.

Right mathematics, (along with common sense) rules out life creation by accident and the macro-evolution process. The mathematical impossibilities of
life forming on its own, let alone a life permitting universe and planet, are beyond belief, yet the evolution believer claims this to be true by
randomness. They don't talk about this in schools because the only alternative is admitting to God, and Bible, and Creation as being true, and they
will never admit this. No matter how absurd the idea, and how oppose to real science, as long as it isn't God, its ok with the main stream secular
view.
They will go to great lengths to deny God and his creation even if it is blatantly obvious.

edit on 28-9-2013 by Kaboose because: (no reason
given)

edit on 28-9-2013 by Kaboose because: (no reason given)

If you have no knowledge of mathematics or probability theory, don't make assertions pretending that you do. It's painfully transparent that you
don't know what you're talking about.

Furthermore, you're conflating abiogenesis and evolution, which are distinct. To top it off, the only alternative to spontaneous abiogenesis and
evolution is NOT the Christian creation story. Wherever did you get that idea? There are dozens of perfectly good creation stories that are just as
plausible - if not more so - than the one proposed by Christianity.

This has nothing to do with "denying" god. The fact of the matter is that there is NO evidence for the Christian god, there is NO evidence for the
Christian creation myth, and there is plenty of evidence for evolution. Indeed, a literal interpretation of the bible is so contradictory of
well-established fact, history, physics, and reality that it is easily demonstrated as erroneous and false.

Jonjonj
Having ignored all the so called brainiacs and such, I am responding to the original premise.
Mathematics as a tool to consider probability is either proved to be true (within our understanding of such) on this idea or breaks down in the face
of fact: We exist, therefore the question makes no real sense.

Whatever the odds may have been when considering the possibility, the fact that we exist renders such an idea redundant.

Wrong. Our existence does not render any questions about the probability of our existence redundant. If I roll a die and the result is a 1, it does
not render the question of "what is the probability that I would have rolled a 1" redundant.

Your first sentence here in the quote makes no sense to me. "Mathematics as a tool to consider probability is either proved to be true or breaks down
in the face of fact"? Please elaborate, because I suspect that this statement is either wrong or nonsensical.

Oh crap, I thought this was gonna be one of the bad 170 minute long videos....

This guy needs an animator and Morgan freeman and he could release this in theaters!!

Getting Morgan to do it is the easy part, just gotta find an animator.

edit on 26-9-2013 by AbleEndangered because: changed 150 to 170

I finally started to watch the video because of this post, so thank you for your enthusiastic response. I've had this one bookmarked for a long time
and just haven't gotten to it, and then I read your post again....so, thanks. I'll write further on the vid once I watch it, which may not be all at
once, but now I'll make sure to view it. Live and learn, that's my dogs motto.

However, every time I've noted that the universe has not been in existence REMOTELY BEGINNING to be long enough for even minimal evolution to occur .
. . it's like eyes glass over and brains go blank and all one gets back is irrational dogma from the Religion of Science high priests, bishops and
acolytes.

However, every time I've noted that the universe has not been in existence REMOTELY BEGINNING to be long enough for even minimal evolution to occur .
. . it's like eyes glass over and brains go blank and all one gets back is irrational dogma from the Religion of Science high priests, bishops and
acolytes.

Right. This opinion of yours that 13.8 billion years isn't enough time is based on?

Right mathematics, (along with common sense) rules out life creation by accident and the macro-evolution process. The mathematical impossibilities of
life forming on its own, let alone a life permitting universe and planet, are beyond belief, yet the evolution believer claims this to be true by
randomness. They don't talk about this in schools because the only alternative is admitting to God, and Bible, and Creation as being true, and they
will never admit this. No matter how absurd the idea, and how oppose to real science, as long as it isn't God, its ok with the main stream secular
view.
They will go to great lengths to deny God and his creation even if it is blatantly obvious.

edit on 28-9-2013 by Kaboose because: (no reason
given)

edit on 28-9-2013 by Kaboose because: (no reason given)

No it is not random. Protiens and molecules organize themselves based on define chemical processes. Evolution itself is a process. It is not random
and therefore cannot be defined using statistical probabilities.

Given the complexities involved . . . that amount of time doesn't BEGIN to afford remotely sufficient time to even get to first base of extremely
simple one celled organisms.

Surely you can cite these articles? Or maybe you can point out one good and recent review article? Are these mathematics taking into account that
things tend to happen in parallel? Well, let's not get ahead of ourselves. Let's see your articles first..

Did you keep track of all your recreational reading over the last 40+ years?

I didn't.

I will, however, see what I can dig up . . .

even though I'm extremely skeptical that you have much fair-minded open-mindedness toward such info. I confess I'm lumping you in with those who
typically take your stance on such issues. I don't really know your degree of open-mindedness or fair-mindedness on the topic. Your post doesn't
reveal much, such, though.

It would appear he is arguing against abiogenesis and as such the blog does not disprove evolution. Instead it appears he is arguing against one
person's choice of relating the statistical probability of evolution occurring to the odds of drawing specific playing cards. It says nothing of
there not being enough time which is the argument you postulated. Further, he appears to be a Bible-literalist which makes him rather unscientific in
my opinion.

It has been said that this is as likely as a cyclone going through a junkyard and producing a fully functional jumbo jet.
.

People do say that if you allow enough time, anything can happen. However, at best we have about 4.6 billion years to work with. If Sir Fred Hoyle's
calculated probability was for a cell to form in say the next second then the probability of a cell forming in 4.6 billion years is still about 10 to
the power of 39982 to 1. If it was for a microsecond, the probability would be 10 to the power of 39976 to 1. If it was for a picosecond, the
probability would be 10 to the power of 39970 to 1.
.

There are approximately 10 to the power of 80 atoms in this universe.
.

It is also claimed that life came from another planet. Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick recognised the problem of the extremely low probability that
life could come from non-life on earth. He concluded that the earth was not old enough, and postulated that life may have come from another planet.
Hence in order for us then to have a 1000 to 1 chance of life forming by itself, (and lets assume that an asteroid will definitely take the life to
earth) there would need to be roughly 10 to the power of 38970 planets out there (fairly close to us) capable of supporting life.

= = =

I think this is a better article talking about some of the 'finer points'

about such probabilities and evolutionists' flawed attempts to debunk valid probability calculations, hypotheses.

. . .
shows that given all the time evolutionists claim is necessary, the probability that a simple living organism could be produced by mutations “is so
small as to constitute a scien­tific impossibility”— “the chance that it could have happened anywhere in the universe...is less than 1 [chance]
in 102,999,942.”[1] A figure like this is termed exponential notation, and is the figure one with almost three million zeros after it. Figures like
this are terminal to evolu­tion. (We will discuss exponential notation shortly.)
.

In another article, Dr. Rodabaugh takes the argument to absurd levels to show that “It is impossible that evolution occurred.” Even giving
evolution every conceivable chance and even “assuming that evolution is 99.9999% certain, then ‘evolution [still] has only a 1 in 10132 chance of
being valid.... Therefore, even with the beginning assumption that evolution is a virtual certainty, a conditional probability analysis of the fossil
record [alone] results in the conclusion that evolution is a demonstrable absurdity.’” [2]
.

According to the French expert on probability, Emile Borél, his “single law of chance” (1 chance in 1050) beyond which things never occur,
“carries with it a certainty of another nature than mathematical certainty... it is comparable even to the certainty with which we attribute to the
existence of the external world.” [3] Here we see that one chance in 10132 is no chance.
.

Using probability and other calculations, James F. Coppedge, author of Evolution: Pos­sible or Impossible?, concludes concerning the origin of
chirality, or “left-handed” amino acids that, “No natural explanation is in sight which can adequately explain the mystery that proteins use
only left-handed components. There is little hope that it will be solved in this way in the future. Even if such a result occurred by chance, life
would still not exist. The proteins would be helpless and nonliving without the entire complicated DNA-RNA system to make copies for the future.”
[4] Indeed, “The odds against the necessary group of proteins being all left-handed ‘is beyond all comprehension. ’” [5]
.

= = = =

.

Anyway . . . enough.

I don't expect folks who are dyed-in-the-wool acolytes, priests and bishops of the Religion of Scientism to learn anything from the above links.
Their minds were made up a long time ago.

However, they are there for the fair-minded.

I don't plan on getting into the details of such discussions . . . they are far too tedious to be fun and they bore me a lot.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.